1st Peter could have been written before 41 AD.

So people insisting Babylon can't be Babylon in 1 Peter and Revelation like to talk about Josephus account in Antiquities Of The Jews Book 18 Chapter 9 of the Jewish community in Babylon being forced to leave for Seleucia in 41 AD as evidence Peter wouldn't have gone there with no Jewish population left.

One website mistakenly says 41 BC, I think that's just a typo though.  This event is the end of Book 18, it follows the entire reign of Tiberius and all or most of the reign of Caligula, so it happened in 40 AD at the soonest.

Now I've responded to this in a few ways in the past.  First Trajan's account clearly has Babylon still existing and populated in the teens of the second century.  Lots of sites online insist on talking about this account as if it says Babylon was nothing but a ruin, they are just over emphasizing Trajan's disappointment at it's decline, but it's also clear people were still living there as at least one Temple was till operating as Trajan offered sacrifices to Alexander in the room where he died.  Therodoret of Cyrus refers to Babylon still being inhabited in the fifth century.

And I've also argued that Peter could mean Babylon as in the region of Babylonia, not just the individual city of Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar.  The Babylonian Talmud is called the Babylonian Talmud for a reason.  I agree with those who say the Babel of Genesis 11 was probably Eridu.  And in Seleucia both the Gentile and Jewish population were of people who were moved there from Babylon, they may well have called themselves Babylon in some sense.  The Jewish Population of Seleucia got involved in the Kitos War during the reign of Trajan.   The Assyrian Orthodox Church had a Bishopric in Babylonia till well after the Muslin Conquest, often based in Seleucia.

 However I also feel it's highly possible 1 Peter was written before 40 AD.  I place the Crucifixion in 30 AD, and the events of Acts chapters 6 through most of 11 in 36/37 AD, maybe getting into early 38 at the latest.  By then Believers were being called Christians at Antioch and Peter was done with his affairs in Joppa and Caesarea.

The Death of Herod Agrippa recorded in Acts 12 was in 44 AD.  We tend to assume the Passover season when James was martyred and Peter imprisoned was the one of that same year, and if true it perfectly leaves room for Peter to have been in Babylon during that gap.  But it's also possible the narrative of Acts 12 after verse 19 jumps forward to record his death.  It might be the end of Acts 11 and beginning of Acts 12 is supposed to be at the very start of the reign of Claudius, Herod Agrippa didn't become King of Judea till Claidus came to power.  I think it's possible Peter and James were in Jerusalem for this Passover because it was Pilgrimage festival, their being here isn't evidence no one left Judea yet.

Don't get deluded by any notion it'd take a long time for Christian Communities to emerge in the places Peter wrote to.  Pentecost of Acts 2 included Jews from those same parts of Asia and Mesopotamia.  The communities Paul started later were the primarily Gentile ones, 1 Peter is specifically addressed to Jewish Believers of the Diaspora.

Paul said Peter was in charge of bringing The Gospel to the Circumcision in Galatians 2:7-8, and for over 600 years by this time Babylonia had the most important Jewish community outside of Israel.  Rome had a Jewish population (also represented at Pentecost) but it was much smaller and less significant.  So Peter would be remiss in his duties if he didn't go to Babylonia.

The idea that Peter would use Babylon as code for Rome to hide what he's talking about from the Roman authorities is absurd.  Besides negative assumptions we make about the name Babylon, Peter isn't saying anything bad about this city, just that it's is where he is, and presumably so is Marcus.  And if any authorities had intercepted the letter they could easily have known where it as mailed from and so using a derogatory code name could only be counter productive to that presumed goal.

Now all that said, I have been contemplating the Babylon in Egypt theory, and may make a post on that soon, though frankly my thoughts there are more about that being The Babylon of Revelation.

The oldest traditions do not assume every Mark or Marcus of The New Testament was the same person.  And I unlike most don't even think every John Mark was the same, fact is among Romanized Jews of the first century John Mark was likely the equivalent of John Smith.  The John Mark associated with Paul and Barnabas is probably the cousin of Barnabus mentioned in the Epistles.  The John Mark son of Mary of Acts 12 I think is the one Peter mentions in his Epistle and who wrote the Gospel According to Mark.

I believe The Gospel According to Mark was based on what Peter preached in Babylonia, and I agree with the arguments for it and Matthew both being written already before the events of Acts 12.

Biblical Prophets were not cowards, when Babylon was the current world power Old Testament Prophets didn't use Nineveh as code, no in the Old Testament Nineveh is Nineveh and Babylon is Babylon.  So I'm tired of people saying that Revelation's "Old Testament imagery" proves Babylon is Rome.

If you respect Tradition so much, the Assyrian Orthodox Church traditionally holds that Peter was exactly where he says he was when he wrote that Epistle.

A New Perspective on Isaiah 14

I did a major study on Isaiah 14 before.  I now have new insights that have forced me to reject the idea of it being relevant to the Death and Resurrection of the Antichrist.  Much of my insights there are still helpful, and I don't feel like repeating my adjustments to the Translation.  That post however also predates my changing my view on Daniel 11:36-45.

Isaiah 13:1-14:27 is all one Prophecy, remember that as you study this yourself.  I still feel this thematically connects Revelation 12 to Revelation 18.

As I was thinking about that again recently, it hit me how I really should have realized after talking about a possible allusion to the Abyss there that I had just discovered an Old Testament reference to Satan being bound in the Abyss.

Verse 19 was the main smoking gun to my reading Revelation 13 into it, "thrust through with a sword" but as I read it more carefully now, it's not Satan or the King of Babylon being described that way, just talking in general about people who have died violently because of this individual's evil deeds.

I also realized that when talking about the King of Babylon being sent to Sheol it never says this individual died at any point.  Another note I should mention is the word translated "dead" in verse 9 isn't a usual Hebrew word for dead but Raphaim.

The standard view of Isaiah 14 among the faithful is that it starts out talking about the King of Babylon then the subject switches to Satan.  I said in the prior post I felt verse 12's grammar justified that, but I now realize that was my bias talking.

Another view is that this is all just about a human King of Babylon and that the seeming references to someone falling from Heaven shouldn't be taken at face value.  One video on Youtube insists the term "Sides of the North" being used in Psalm 48 about Zion proves that term is about a Terrestrial location, Jerusalem.  However Psalm 48 could be the Heavenly Zion of Hebrews 12:22 and Revelation 14, the heavenly location that will become New Jerusalem and then descend after the New Heaven and New Earth are created.  The "Sides of The North" is where I believe the Heavenly Temple/Tabernacle is.  Interestingly Pagan Canaanite texts also use this same terminology of Heaven.

And the view of Bible skeptics is that Isaiah is just poetically comparing a human King of Babylon to a mythical god.  I have addressed that elsewhere.

I have considered a new option.  There is no Human King of Babylon in this chapter, this King of Babylon is never described as an Adam or an Enosh, he's never defined as human.  Just as Ezekiel 48 refers to Satan as the King of Tyre after talking about Tyre so here Satan is called the King of Babylon after talking about Babylon.  Because Jesus called him the Ruler of The World (Archon of the Kosmos) in John's Gospel, and Paul called him the "God of this Aion".  He offered Jesus all the Kingdoms of The World and will give them to The Beast in Revelation 13.

The beast is in conflict with Babylon in Revelation 17, but I think that plays into Satan's manipulations.  And it could be God's destruction of the City in chapter 18 is after The Beast conquers it and destroys it's system represented by the Harlot in chapter 17.

(Note, this does not change my view that the Prince of Tyre in Ezekiel 48 is a human ruler, but I'm less certain that has anything to do with The Antichrist).

It could be the Abyss is being idiomatically spoken of as his grave in verse 19.

In verse 20, the "thy" before both "land" and "people" isn't in the Hebrew. Even if their presence is grammatically justified somehow (I'm by no means a Hebrew expert), this could be going back to whatever Satan's intended role was before he started working against God's will in Genesis 3, that he's destroyed lands and people he was meant to be responsible for.

It could be the narrative jumps forward a thousand years, from when Satan is cast into the Pit to when he's cast out.

In that past Isaiah 14 study I talked about The Assyrian at the end.  This now gives me a new answer to that mystery.

Chris White has a video where he seeks to refute the view of The Antichrist being an Assyrian.  I basically agree on that but have differences, for one in the past I'd criticized that video for ignoring Isaiah 14.  But I completely agree on Isaiah 9-11, though I do think that could have an End Times second fulfillment, if so that Assyrian would be more likely a decoy Antichrist.

The key to it's relevance here is Micah 5 starting in verse 4.  I agree with him that the context of that Prophecy is Millennial, (I had even before this recent insight).  But I'm not so convinced of the argument that the hypothetical language means it's not something that will happen.  White himself uses hypothetical statements to build eschatological doctrine elsewhere, with John 5 which his False Christ book is dependent on, but I possibly have a different view on.

Now I'm thinking again of my argument that there may be more time between Satan being let out of the Abyss and the Gog and Magog invasion then people realize (I agree with Christ White that Ezekiel 38-39 is post Millennial).  What if Micah 5's Assyrian invasion of Israel is something that happens very soon after Satan is freed from the Abyss?  Satan's first act in the events leading up to the Gog and Magog War?  A detail Revelation 20 skips or glosses over?

In which case Micah 5 and Isaiah 14's Assyrian Prophecies could be the same event, an event soon after the thousand years expire.  And whether there is an individual being called "The Assyrian" or just about the nation and people of Asshur would be irrelevant.  This could also tie in with my thoughts on Isaiah 17 and Damascus.

Isaiah on Babylon

I want to address the absurdity of thinking Isaiah 13 has already been fulfilled.

It's most annoying when I see people who think Isaiah's prophecies are about the fall to Cyrus, where no Battle even happened, nothing happened in the 530s BC that can remotely fit any Bible passages about Babylon besides Daniel who wrote about that history contemporary with it.  And defending the accuracy of Daniel on this is something I have done and may continue to do in other posts on this blog.

The informed intelligent people arguing for a Preterist interpretation of Isaiah's Prophecies about Babylon focus on the earlier destruction the city faced in Isaiah's own time, during the reign of Merodach-Baladan.

I indeed do think Isaiah 21 is about that piece of Babylonian History.  Chris White makes an argument for that, starting about 8 or 9 minutes into that podcast.  He expresses plenty else here I don't agree with concerning the 7 heads and so forth, and I've addressed his own Mystery Babylon view elsewhere.

The problem with applying any of these purely military falls of Babylon to Isaiah 13-14 or Jeremiah 50-51 is that while those include many military and political aspects, ultimately they are also divine Judgments comparable to what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Isaiah 13 includes a statement that the Sun, Moon and Stars will not give their light.  That did not happen in the days of Merodach-Baladan, or Belshazzar.  But it fits Isaiah 13 being the same as Revelation 17-18 since the effect of the Fifth Bowl of God's Wrath (Revelation 16) will probably not have been undone yet.

And I've talked about Isaiah 14 and the Fall of Lucifer extensively elsewhere, that happens in Revelation 12, at the midway point of the final Seven year period.

There is not a near and far fulfillment issue here, Isaiah 13 does not perfectly or even vaguely fit any past events.  All anyone can do is say "hey look, Babylon fell, that must be what Isaiah meant" but an analysis of the details will never hold up.

And for all the "there are no modern Medes" nonsense, I have earlier posts on the Medes and the Kurds.  But in Isaiah 21 the Medes (and Elam) are on Babylon's side, not enemies as they are in other prophecies.

People who want to make Isaiah 21 about the fall to Cyrus in addition to ignoring that the Medes are Babylon's ally here, want to make Elam a reference to Persia.  The Persians were not the same people as Elam, in fact the Persians were probably Japhetic like the Medes were, they may even be Medes themselves once traced all the way back to Genesis 10.

As far as Isaiah's additional Babylon references in chapters 43, 47 and 48.  Well I haven't delved into those too deeply yet.

The Lost Tribes and Bible Prophecy

I know all the arguments out there against thinking The Lost Tribes are a thing.  I've heard it from Chuck Missler and Chris White.

I know that the Levites moved South when Jeroboam fell into idolatry.  And Chuck insists we can infer everyone not Ok with the idolatry did the same.  Even though it's repeatedly demonstrated that The North had a believing remnant.  God never tells his people that as a rule they must leave a country if it's sinful, we should be trying to make our countries better.  The Levites had a special purpose linked to The Temple.

I know that they claim Assyrian Records show the deportation to be not just incomplete but even it seems only a very small portion from select regions.  I prefer to believe Biblical Records over Secular ones, which say people remained but not a whole lot.  Most of those that did intermarried with Gentiles to become the Samaritans, who Jesus considered not Children of Israel.

See the problem with the point about the Assyrian Records is the Deportation happened in phases.  Just as the Southern Kingdom's did.  And those records cited deal with only one of what were at least 3 deportations.  The records of the 722 BC (724 BC in Usser) deportation is what people focus on.  But 1 Chronicles 5 alludes to earlier deportation of specifically the Trans-Jordan tribes, and additional deportations likely happened during Sennacherib's campaign against Hezekiah, or when they deported King Manasseh, the latter probably explains when Simeon was deported.

I know Josiah and Hezikiah and Asa had their special Second Passover where they invited northern Kingdom Survivors to come South and join them.  There were far from complete, but Anna the Prophetess I think descends from those Asherites.

I know the return from captivity records people from every Tribe but Dan returning. That Return wasn't complete even for the Southern Tribes. After even the last major return in the days of Nehemiah a significant population remained behind.

I know that after the captivity The Bible often treats Judah and Israel as synonymous.  But that is poetic in nature.

Even if all those points were as completely valid as they make them seem.  The Fact remains that Bible Prophecy speaks of a reunification of Judah and Joseph/Ephraim as Eschatological/End Times.

Chuck Missler in his commentary on Ezekiel 37 actually goes on about all those points as if Ezekiel 37 proved his point, Judah and Joseph are one.  The entire point of that reference is it's foretelling their reunification as part of that Prophecy.  And I also disagree with Chuck's desire to remove the literal Bodily Resurrection from this passage.  Yes it is about Israel's restoration as a Nation.  But it's not 1948, it's them being restored in belief, during The Millennium, after the First Resurrection is finished.  The references to the Resurrected David being there should leave that beyond dispute.

Now the thing neglected by people who tend to want to see this reunification as all flowers and roses is some of the Prophecies on this theme seem to predict more conflict between Judah and Ephraim, like they often had before.  Isaiah 9-11 may or may not have an End Times second application, but Isaiah 28 is indisputably End Times.  Zachariah 9-11 may also be of interest.  But on Isaiah 9-11, those that see the End Times there usually think The Assyrian is The Antichrist.  But in Ezekiel, The Assyrian is the Terrible of The Nations, who kills The Antichrist.  Isaiah 11 seems to me to allude to both The Antichrist and The False Prophet when speaking of Ephraim.  Jeremiah 4 and Micah 1 are also worth considering.

Jeremiah and Ezekiel when foretelling the Southern Kingdom's coming fall to Babylon compared it to the earlier fall of the Northern Kingdom.  God is saying you fell into the same error so I'll do unto you as I did unto them.  Well it's interesting that the captivity of Judah happened twice, it had a second fulfillment under The Romans.

Lots of Christians see an eschatological significance to much of Hosea.  But they insist the End Times application must manifest in Israel as a whole, even though the book is about Ephraim.

Chris White makes a solid argument that The Antichrist might claim to be the non Biblical Messiah Ben-Joseph.  I've talked on that before and how he leaves out the whole Northern Kingdom aspect of that. I also discus some of my thoughts on British Israelism there.

I also have a post where I respond to his view on Daniel 7.

Hosea 13:7-8 "Therefore I will be unto them as a lion: as a leopard by the way will I observe them:I will meet them as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, and will rend the caul of their heart, and there will I devour them like a lion: the wild beast shall tear them. "

I don't think it's a coincidence that this uses the same three animals used of the first three Beasts in Daniel 7.  Yes God uses them of himself coming upon Israel, but he often Judges Israel by foreign nations fighting wars with them. But if that's the case where is the fourth beast?  I'm speculating it could be viewed as Ephraim, in the sense that Ephraim represents the Northern Kingdom in general.

Deuteronomy 33:17 "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."

Jeremiah 31:18 " I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God."

And remember the Idols Jeroboam set up were Bulls, modeled after The Golden Calf.  Bulls are horned animals, they don't have 10 but that's irreverent, they're a horned animal.  The number being 10 could mean 10 nations that are claiming to be the Ten Lost Tribes.

I think the 4th World Empire is a hydride Empire, Edom/Rome (the Iron in both) and Ephraim/Dan.  I think in the Statue of Daniel 2 Ephraim would be the Miry Clay.  Many have interpreted the Miry Clay to represent the "Barbarian" tribes mingling with Rome as the Western Empire fell apart.  Those are the same tribes often identified as being entirely or at least partly descended from The Lost Tribes in British Israelism/Franco Israelism/Britam.  Usually those two Biblical connections for them aren't made by the same commentator however, (Example: Britam sees the Miry Clay as Ishmaelites).

Chris White continues to be skeptical of seeing the European Union as the Fourth Beast because it has more then 10 nations. I've posted one response to his objections before.  But I now have a better one.  The Ten Horns are not the entire confederation, only part of it as they'ree only part of The Beast.

I think the Ten Horns are the nine European nations Britam claims are Israelite nations plus Germany (who Britam wants to see Edom but they're really more like the other supposedly Israelite nations then the Edomite ones).  The iron teeth are Edom/Rome and hence Italy, Spain, Portugal and Western Mediterranean Islands like Malta and Corsica.  And the nails/claws of brass/bronze going back to Daniel 2 would be Modern Greece, and perhaps to a lesser extent Turkey/Cyprus.  I know people like to list all kinds of reasons Turkey will never become part of the EU, but militarily speaking it effectively already is via it's involvement in both the WEU and NATO.

That even those don't cover the entire EU (mostly it's eastern Europe that is left out) isn't a big deal because they're still not the entire body of The Beast clearly, but they're the key clues emphasized.

In the closing verses of Obadiah, the prophecy of the finale Destruction of Edom seems to allude to some Judgment coming on Ephraim/Samaria at the same time.

I made a post arguing against the Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon view.  What I have considered since then is that maybe Mystery Babylon could be Samaria, looking at passages like Micah 1.  Or maybe a different Northern Kingdom Capital within the land allotted to Ephraim and/or Manasseh.

In Hosea God says he shall avenge the Blood of Jezreel against the House of Jehu.  Jehu I've argued could be a type of The Antichrist.

Chris White has argued that Armageddon in Revelation might refers to Hadadrimmon rather then Megiddo.  Zechariah 12:11 refers to both, and both like Jezreel are in or by the Valley of Jezreel.

In Revelation 16 Armageddon is the gathering place, not where the battle itself is.  I think maybe The Beast gathers his armies after the 6th Bowl and then marches south.  Attacks whatever city Mystery Babylon is in the Mountains of Samaria (could that be why it's on 7 hills?) because we're told The beast will turn on The Harlot.  Then he marches on Jerusalem, but Jerusalem he won't destroy because Jesus comes back to defend Jerusalem.

Follow Up Post

The Resurrection of The Antichrist: Isaiah 14

Isaiah 13 and most of 14 is one Prophecy. 13 is talking about the Fall of Babylon, a prophecy that has not been literally fulfilled, an arguable near fulfillment exists in Isaiah's day, but it doesn't fit the full details even remotely. And attempts to make this fit the fall to Cyrus don't work at all. 14 begins with saying how Yaweh will choose Israel and give them the land.

I used to view The King of Babylon as not being The Beast, but as probably a decoy Antichrist the Beast will defeat, but I've changed my mind after only recently noticing aspects of this I repeatedly overlooked. Which is gonna cause me to have to go back and adjust some details of my older dissertations.

A note, I shall adjust the KJV rendering to better reflect The Hebrew, influenced by my own in depth study.

Now let's begin, verses 4-11 are talking about the human King.

That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased ! the golden city ceased ! Yaweh hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.  He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.  The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.  Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the demons for thee, even all the rams of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.  All they shall speak and say unto thee, "Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?" Thy pomp is brought down to Sheol, and the noise of thy viols: the maggot is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

So this Human ruler has died and is now in Sheol, called Hades in the Greek and often by us Hell. But this isn't the Lake of Fire.

Now people assume what comes next is mentioned for the purpose of comparing these two personages. I feel the grammar justifies that a new character is in mind, but the person we were discussing will come up again latter. Isaiah 14:12-14

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the Dawn ! how art thou cut down to the earth, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Highest.

This is one of the core passages on the fall of Satan from heaven. The only one besides Revelation that could help us time it chronologically, but Revelation is far more precise.

Now I think we learn why these two come together in verse 15

Yet thou shalt go down to Sheol, to the sides of the pit.

They are now in the same place. In the New Testament "The Pit" is used of the Abyss. Given Hebrew poetic style however, I think this reference means a synonym of Hades. Though it could work either way if the Abyss is a specific part of Hades, or a location right next to it. This Hebrew word is also used of just literal cisterns and dungeons also.

The big translation issue I noticed is that the part of the usual translations that imply he's being brought there against his will, like his fall was, isn't in the Hebrew. It can be read that he went down there on his own, his fall was only to The Earth.

In the past I've been against viewing The Beast as possessed by Satan like Judas was, simply out of lack of direct reference. But here once both characters are in the underworld, the grammar of the text does seem to treat them as one.

Now verses 16-19 is the key really interesting part.

They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lay in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

Generally we've considered the idea of the Beast's having his own Death and Resurrection merely implied by the "mortal wound" being healed in Revelation 13, and how Daniel 45 speaks of his end. But we miss how Isaiah here explicitly speaks of a King who'll go to Hell, but then be "cast out of his grave". And having some sort of wound from a sword.

Of the three ways the KJV translated that word throughout The Bible I chose "grave" because it most literally conveyed the idea poetically. It can also mean "sepulcher", and I do think as I explained elsewhere the Dome of The Rock could be his sepulcher. It's not Sheol however, which the KJV also often renders Grave, but I personally choose never to translate it that way.

Revelation twice when describing The Beast (both references timing wise I see as after his resurrection). Refers to him as ascending out of the Abyss. 11:7 "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them." 17:8 "The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition".

I also see here a possible description of his post resurrection state. See I don't think The Antichrist's resurrection will be one like Lazurus, just being returned to how he was before. Though he's certainly not like our promised Resurrection either. That he and The False Prophet are in Revelation 19 cast into the Lake of Fire without being killed first implies to me that they are early partakers of the Second Resurrection. I've written on my theory about The False Prophet's identity elsewhere.

Since we who will be of The First Resurrection will have bodies like The Angels. I think it's possible that the bodies of The Second Resurrection will be like the bodies of Fallen Angels. II Corinthians 5:2 "For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven". The word translated "house" here is Oiketerion. A word used only one other time in The Bible, in Jude 6 where it's translated "habitation". "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Like Chuck Missler I view this word as being a technical term for the Incorruptible bodies of Unfallen beings.

Does this tell us anything about the timing of other events in relation to his resurrection, mainly the destruction of Babylon that was discussed before?

That his mortal wound's healing is mid week is pretty indisputable from other references. This account is in the context of the yet future Fall of Babylon. But the context here is a semi change of subject, it could be looking back to explain how this King became what he is now, when Babylon falls. Or it could be this is going on to describe how this King after is judged Babylon is judged. Or maybe Babylon's End Times Judgment really happens in phases? Now to continue. Verses 19-23

But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.  Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not stand, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with enemy cities. For I will rise up against them, saith Yahweh of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and offspring, and posterity, saith Yahweh.  I will also make it a possession for the porcupines, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction, saith Yahweh of hosts.

The subject of Babylon itself seems to be returned to, as if the process of destruction began earlier but hadn't ended yet. It's interesting that he's spoken of as slaying his own people.

What new does this understanding tell us?

It kind of directly links the counterfeit resurrection to Satan's fall. Daniel 11:45 and 12:1 are the same continuous message originally, (the Chapter divisions are modern), also place "Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people" at the time the Willful King meets his end. Daniel 12:1 I also believe correlates to Revelation 12:7 "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon" which is directly linked to when The Woman (Israel) flees to the Wilderness.

Verses 24-27 are still the same Prophecy, no "Word of The LORD came unto me saying" or any other indicator of it being a change in subject. None the less some Bibles include a new Chapter heading here as if it were different that calls it Judgment on Assyria. The text in the KJV says The Assyrian however.

The Assyrian here could be one of 3 or 4 things

1. The same King of Babylon we'd been discussing. I consider this the least likely since the other passages people cite as calling The Antichrist as The Assyrian I see as flawed logically also. Micah 5 is being hypothetical, saying how Israel can't be attacked once The Messiah reigns. And I've come to see Isaiah 9-11, if End Times at all (it could be easily just be about events form Isaiah's time when he gave this Prophecy) as linking The Antichrist to Ephraim rather then Assyria. Because I see Isaiah 9:14-15 "Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day. The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail." as being a rare outside Revelation reference to The Antichrist being paired with a False Prophet.

2. Perhaps the "Terrible of The Nations" from Ezekiel I'll discus when I study those Chapters later.

3. The "King of The North" from Daniel 11:40. Could be the same person as 2 or maybe not.

4. It could be a flawed Translation, and simply mean Assyria, or the Assyrian people. Which could maybe overlap with either 1 or 2 or 3.

When it's said of The Beast "and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." The terminology could mean continue as in he should have ended already. I think specifically it's referring to the amount of time following his being cast out of Hades.

The Kurds have been in the News Today

I of course believe the view that they are the Eschatological Medes of Isaiah 13 and Jeremiah 50-51.  I'm going to share here some links on the subject.

I disagree with plenty of other Prophetic views in some of these articles. I've spoken elsewhere on why I reject Turkey being part of the Gog and Magog alliance. And Either way I see it as Post Millennial. And Because Isaiah 13-14 is relevant, the usual mistakes about Satan's fall which I've sought to correct elsewhere come up.

And sadly many I'm sure were written by typical Republican Evangelicals, who support Neo-Con foreign Policy. I find it amusing how Perry Stone talks about the huge mess in Iraq and how it might be paving the way for The Antichrist. But refusing to accept that Bush's foreign policy is what made that mess.

First is a link not bringing any Biblical Prophecy or modern Politics into it. Just about the reasons why The Kurds can claim to be the modern Medes.

http://www.kurdistanica.com/?q=node/78

I realize there are other scholars skeptical of the view. And they're not the only people who can claim some Medean descent, and more then just the Medes contributed to their ancestry. But they're the ones in The right Biblical place. The way the controversy brings Turkey and Iran into it also fits. Jeremiah also refers to locations in western Turkey and northern Iran when he speaks of Ashkenaz and Ararat and Minni in 51:27.

These Links are on the modern situation without bringing in Prophecy.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2...us-turkey.html#

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defe...remium-1.601997

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la...0629-story.html

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-d...soon/1563466334

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2...7321568960.html
This last one is a liberal source critical of Israel supporting the Kurds. Ignoring that Jordan was created to be a state for The Muslims of the "Palestine" region.

The following links are on The Medes role in Isaiah and Jeremiah's prophecies.

http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2014...region-of-iraq/

http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n2150.cfm

http://blogs.christianpost.com/geopolitics...prophecy-14247/

http://gracethrufaith.com/end-times-prophe...n-of-the-medes/

I should add that I personally think this conflict involving The Kurds, Iraq, Turkey and Iran may be the crisis that is the "tidings out of the east and out of the north" that bother the Willful King in Daniel 11:44 after he conquers The King of The North (Syria) which looking at things right now may be I.S.I.S.

Some people speculate on The Kurds possibly having Lost Tribes ancestry, I talk about why that more here.  It makes sense because many of the deported northern Israelites were taken to the cities of the Medes.

Update: The Linguistic evidence is the main argument, the Kurds are pretty much the only speakers of the only surviving Northwestern Iranian Languages, meaning the languages that descend from the Median Kingdom of Isaiah and Jeremiah's times.